Classical employment itself constituted domination by the master’s will

Evidence

How could anyone expect the state to ensure that employees- servants, as they were-would enjoy a non-dominated status, when the prevailing notion of employment or service entailed a subjugation to the master’s will? The prevailing notion is well caught in a remark of Sydney’s (1990: 548-9) in which he reveals why a servant cannot hope to enjoy non-domination. ‘He must serve me in my own way, or be gone if I think fit, tho he serve me never so well; and I do him no wrong in putting him away, if either I intend to keep no servant, or find that another will please me better’ (Sydney 1990: 548-9) How could anyone expect the state to ensure that women would enjoy such an non-dominated status when the received view was that women were subject to the will of their father or husband (Pateman 1988)? — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 256

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The employment relation was defined as the master’s arbitrary power; Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1207

Broader Connections

• The employment relation was defined as the master’s arbitrary power #corroborates (0.85)
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery #qualifies (0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207